Prior participation and failure to show sufficient cause defeat an Order IX Rule 13 application.

Respondent No. 1 obtained an ex parte decree for specific performance on 19 October 2002.

The petitioner, defendant No. 3, applied under Order IX Rule 13 CPC to set it aside on 3 November 2003, asserting that he had not received notice of the suit and had learned of it through execution proceedings.

His application was dismissed for want of prosecution; his subsequent restoration application was also dismissed.

In appeal, the dismissal was set aside and the matter remitted for fresh consideration.

On remand, the trial court again rejected the Order IX Rule 13 application, finding no plausible explanation for the petitioner’s non-appearance; the appellate court affirmed that decision.

The petitioner then challenged both orders in this writ petition.

Whether the petitioner established sufficient cause for his non-appearance to warrant setting aside the ex parte decree under Order IX Rule 13 CPC

Whether the trial court’s rejection of the application, as affirmed by the appellate court, disclosed perversity or jurisdictional error warranting interference in the writ petition

Order IX Rule 13 CPC permits an ex parte decree to be set aside where the applicant satisfies the court that summons was not duly served or that sufficient cause prevented appearance when the suit was called for hearing.

The applicant must establish the relevant ground for relief; a failure to provide a plausible explanation for non-appearance may justify dismissal.

The Court also considered whether the challenged decisions disclosed perversity or jurisdictional error warranting interference.

The petitioner’s assertion that he had no notice of the suit was inconsistent with the trial judgment, which recorded that he had appeared and filed a written statement.

In those circumstances, the grounds advanced in his Order IX Rule 13 application were misconceived, and he had not demonstrated a plausible reason preventing his appearance.

The appellate court found no palpable infirmity in the trial court’s decision, and the High Court found neither perversity nor jurisdictional error in the concurrent decisions.

Finding no sufficient basis to disturb the decisions below, it dismissed the writ petition, leaving in place the rejection of the Order IX Rule 13 application and the appellate court’s affirmation of that rejection.